Prevention Magazine: Preventing Informed Health Choices

Angela Logomasini

It’s growing increasingly difficult to find reliable health advice. In the past, I thought Prevention magazine was a good source, but they seem to have fallen prey to dangerous junk science and selective reporting. Consider just a few examples of their questionable claims:

A recent Prevention article titled “The Truth About Canned Foods” claims that a new study shows that BPA might be harming the kidneys of both children and adults. Yet the study authors admit that their research is only meaningful because of findings found in other studies. However, these other studies are also inconclusive, which only shows that the researchers have consistently proved nothing. Moreover, the latest study relies on data that is highly unreliable for drawing these conclusions, as I have pointed out and as other research has revealed. For more information on BPA, check out my newsfeed on SafeChemicalPolicy.org.

In “Is Organic Wheat Worth The Extra Dough?,” Prevention authors challenge a study conducted by Stanford University researchers, published in the peer reviewed journal Annals of Internal Medicine, that demonstrates why organic food is no healthier than conventional food. Prevention’s source for disproving the Stanford study is a “competing study” issued by the Organic Center, a group designed to promote organic food. Prevention writers provide no link to, or title of, this competing study and do not mention any peer reviewed journal where it was published (if at all). There are some papers published by the Organic Center on their website, but all were published before the Stanford study and do not appear to provide any new, peer-reviewed research. Prevention authors also fail to mention another study released at the time of their article publication that supports findings of the Stanford study. For more information on why organic food isn’t necessarily better for health or the environment, see my website.

One of the dumbest and most laughable headlines in Prevention is “How to Keep Your Cookies Chemical Free.” Hasn’t anyone ever explained to the people at Prevention that every piece of matter is made of chemicals? Only imaginary cookies can be “chemical-free.” As for their claims about so called “dangerous” chemicals, Prevention authors should stop hyping the risks of trace chemicals because evidence of serious adverse, health effects like cancer is lacking. They fail to acknowledge that trace chemicals are not a significant source of health problems such as cancer, or that it is the dose that makes the poison.

It appears that Prevention reporters share only what they want you to believe, rather than provide objective reporting. They leave out important information that might otherwise help their readers make informed health choices.

STAY CONNECTED

Stay up-to-datewith everything IWF!
Sign up for our newsletter:

IWF PODCAST

Events

Features

Book Store

IWF on TWITTER

Independent Women’s Forum’s mission is to improve the lives of Americans by increasing the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty. Sister organization of Independent Women’s Voice.